FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT[Syllabus]The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.

BARNHART V. SIGMON COAL CO.[Syllabus] The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed agreements requiring contributions to the 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners.

POSTAL SERVICE V. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD.[Syllabus]The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.

UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC. V.UNITED STATESSYLLABUS[Syllabus] The "product liability loss" (PLL) of an affiliated group of corporations electing to file a consolidated federal income tax return must be figured on a consolidated, single-entity basis, not by aggregating PLLs separately determined company by company.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR V. KLAMATHWATER USERS PROTECTIVE ASSN.[Syllabus] Documents passing between Indian Tribes and the Interior Department addressing tribal interests subject to state and federal water-allocation proceedings are not exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act as "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters" under FOIA Exemption 5.

MEYER V. HOLLEY[Syllabus] The Fair Housing Act imposes liability without fault upon a corporate employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.

DOLE FOOD CO. V. PATRICKSON[Syllabus]Whether a corporation in which a foreign sovereign controls a majority of the shares indirectly through ownership of the corporationâ€™s ultimate parent may qualify as a foriegn state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunitities Act

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO[Syllabus] The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.

ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC.[Syllabus]Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.

[Syllabus]

[Syllabus]

MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC.[Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.

[Syllabus]

AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI[Syllabus]California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.